<i>“</i> Staying connected <i>”</i> : Speech-language pathologists’ perspectives on the communication needs of people with primary progressive aphasia and their family members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The research objectives were to explore the communication needs pertaining to (a) people with primary progressive aphasia (PwPPA); (b) family members of PwPPA; and (c) the different variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA), from the perspectives of speech-language pathologists (SLPs). METHOD: This investigation used a qualitatively driven concurrent mixed methods research design. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and mixed methods questionnaires with 14 SLPs. Qualitative content analysis of interview and questionnaire data was used to identify codes and categories related to the research objectives. Quantitative analysis of questionnaire data involved single item summaries and cross item tabulations. RESULT: Analysis revealed eight categories of communication need pertaining to PwPPA and six pertaining to their family members. Results regarding communication needs according to variant of PPA revealed limited findings. CONCLUSION: SLPs perceived several important areas of communication need for PwPPA and their family members, highlighting key clinical implications for proactive communication care across the continuum of care. Future research can build on the current findings and integrate the perspectives of PwPPA and their family members on this topic, to develop interventions and explore models of service delivery to meet their progressive and complex communication needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".